And yet Ted Cruz had no problems standing with his long held opposition to ethanol. Do we want a candidate who changes his position merely because he thinks it's the popular thing to do? Or do we want a candidate who will stick to his guns regardless of audience?
I think you know how I would answer that. But let’s be clear: What we read today is a media effort to destroy Walker, because he is viewed as a potential candidate while Cruz is seen as the longest of long shots.
We have no idea how “the crowd” reacted to Cruz, but ethanol is the golden calf to Iowa. Iowa gets little on gov’t grift; the coasts get billions in welfare and EBT funds.
It’s very problematical. The media will want to report that Walker bombed in Iowa.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3265920/posts
See how they will pile on Walker with this? They are proud of themselves! Both articles in the Wash Examiner; they will split the bylines so it looks like there are multiple attackers.
It’s like surgery. The surgeon is going to tell you how to fix your problem
He’s going to do some wacky things to you and it’s going to hurt and it will cost a lot even with insurance
You’re going to agree go his terms because the time for trusting quacks is over
The guy who confidently and with a record to prove it will get the job and to do the job it will take an enormous intellect he’ll be up against a lot of complications fighting a long growing disease
And that is NOT Scott walker no way
Put him I. Charge of the job of getting rid of corruption in unions. Good that’s necessary. It’s number 53 on a list of items killing this country